Assessing the population relevance of endocrine‐disrupting effects for nontarget vertebrates exposed to plant protection products. (30th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Crane, Mark; Hallmark, Nina; Lagadic, Laurent; Ott, Katharina; Pickford, Dan; Preuss, Thomas; Thompson, Helen; Thorbek, Pernille; Weltje, Lennart; Wheeler, James R
• Is Part Of: Integrated environmental assessment and management. Volume 15:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 278
• Page End: 291
• Publication Date: 2019-01-30
• Subjects: Endocrine disruption -- Plant protection product -- Vertebrate population -- European Union -- Hazard assessment; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Pollution -- Periodicals; Environmental toxicology -- Periodicals; Environmental risk assessment -- Periodicals; Environmental impact analysis -- Periodicals; 628
• DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4113
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1551-3777

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The European Commission intends to protect vertebrate wildlife populations by regulating plant protection product (PPP) active substances that have endocrine‐disrupting properties with a hazard‐based approach. In this paper we consider how the Commission's hazard‐based regulation and accompanying guidance can be operationalized to ensure that a technically robust process is used to distinguish between substances with adverse population‐level effects and those for which it can be demonstrated that adverse effects observed (typically in the laboratory) do not translate into adverse effects at the population level. Our approach is to use population models within the adverse outcome pathway framework to link the nonlinear relationship between adverse effects at the individual and population levels in the following way: (1) use specific protection goals for focal wildlife populations within an ecosystem services framework; (2) model the effects of changes in population‐related inputs on focal species populations with individual‐based population models to determine thresholds between negligible and nonnegligible (i.e., adverse) population‐level effects; (3) compare these thresholds with the relevant endpoints from laboratory toxicity tests to determine whether they are likely to be exceeded at hazard‐based limits or the maximum tolerated dose/concentration from the experimental studies. If the population threshold is not exceeded, then the substance should not be classified as an endocrine disruptor with population‐relevant adversity unless there are other lines of evidence within a weight‐of‐evidence approach to challenge this. We believe this approach is scientifically robust and still addresses the political and legal requirement for a hazard‐based assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:278–291. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC) Key Points: In this paper we consider how the European Commission's hazard‐based Plant Protection Product Regulation can be operationalized to distinguish between substances with adverse population‐level effects and those for which observed adverse effects do not translate into adverse population‐level effects. Our approach is to use population models within the adverse outcome pathways framework to link the nonlinear relationship between adverse effects at the individual and population levels. Only if the population threshold is exceeded should the active substance be classified as an endocrine disruptor with population‐relevant adversity, unless this classification is challenged by other lines of evidence (e.g., from field studies) within a weight‐of‐evidence approach. We believe this approach is scientifically robust and addresses the political and legal requirement for a hazard‐based assessment.